Tom Vogt wrote:
> is it not a right that I can take apart the things I own? in a
> civilized society, it should be. much of our current high-tech culture
> is literally fueled by the curiosity of the youth. sacrifice a culture
> and technology to protect a couple already filthy rich protectionists?
Take apart what I own is one thing -- publishing the results of taking
it apart for a profit (fame or money) is another. The case of CB's RE
is closer to the second, IMO.
> the problem here is that the producer doesn't lose any material good if
> I disclose his thing. furthermore, I believe in a simple rule-of-thumb
> from cryptography: if you can't disclose it (or can't cope with it being
> disclosed by someone else), it's crap.
That rule of thumb applies to algorithms, not to keys. True, it is arguable
what is the algorithm and what is the key in some cases, but that
which you do not change is usually considered to be the algorithm.
But, no company is obligated to disclose the algorithm -- even though
I am a strong believer that there is much more benefit (even, commercial
benefit) in doing so. One example of not disclosing but was not crap
was the RC4 algorithm from Ron Rivest in RSA's products.
> in general, the general public profits if some secret algorithm gets
> known. to be honest, I can't think of a single counter-example.
I agree with this view. But, I am also prepared to accept the view of
those that think otherwise. We live in a society that increasingly
values local discourse, in spite of increasing globalization. We also
accept multiple truths and multiple ways of knowing. If I am truly
democratic, I must respect those that do not agree with what seems
obvious to me -- I cannot claim to possess the whole truth. Nor,
anyone. So, I would rather try to build a "third view" which can unify
our references, which may be entirely different, than to try to integrate
them into an impossible common mold.
As to the counter-example you ask, the general public profits by
lack of disclosure of the algorithm that allows nuclear bombs
to be made with 1 pound of enriched uranium. We have less
nuclear powers.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
